Decarbonisation Technology November 2025 Issue

Feasibility FEL-1

PreFEED FEL-2

FEED FEL-3

Detailed Design FEL-4

Validate optimised scenario feasibility

Clarify scope, de-risk, project and tighten cost certainty

Finalise design, rene cost certainty

Produce build-ready engineering package

Goal

Estimate class

Class 4

Class 3

Class 2

Class 1

Deliverable maturity

1% to 15%

10% to 40%

30% to 75%

65% to 100%

Traditional model

Figure 2 Adapting project delivery for innovation: traditional model

• If execution risk is uncertain, is the EPC experienced in FOAK deployment? Reframing bankability in the era of techno-nationalism Geopolitical tensions and regulatory changes now shape flows of capital, technology, and critical materials. Projects once reliant on global supply chains must increasingly align with domestic agendas and constrained investment channels. In this context, bankability depends not only on technical merit or financial strength but on strategic alignment with national industrial goals. Innovation cannot scale unless delivery models anticipate risk, allocate it effectively, and build investor trust. Emerging pressures include: • Domestic content mandates are reshaping procurement strategies and supply chains by requiring projects to domestically source percentages of materials, components, or services to qualify for financial incentives or accelerated permitting. • Export controls and sanctions restricting access to critical technology. • Regulatory frameworks favouring projects aligned with national priorities, such as local workforce development, supply chain resilience, or emissions targets. For developers, this means accounting for shifting tax credit landscapes, cross-border compliance risks in offtake, and restrictions on foreign capital. Mechanisms like the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in the US or EU screening regulations under RED III are raising new barriers, particularly in sectors deemed strategically sensitive, such as sustainable aviation fuel

(SAF), grid infrastructure, and battery storage. These sectors often intersect with national security, public subsidies, and critical technology domains, triggering heightened scrutiny of ownership, control, and foreign participation. Strategic alignment has become a condition precedent to funding. In today’s environment, investability encompasses not only risk and return, but national interest. A new approach to project delivery FOAK projects often default to traditional linear delivery models: Feasibility (FEL-1), pre-Front End Engineering Design (Pre-FEED or FEL-2), FEED (FEL-3), and Detailed Design (FEL-4) (see Figure 2 ). However, this progression assumes stability, precedent, and modularity – conditions FOAK projects rarely thrive under. Success depends on stage-by-stage rigour and how early decisions reflect interconnected technical, commercial, and policy risks. Conventional feasibility studies tend to isolate variables, evaluating technology selection or site selection separately from feedstock logistics, grid strategy, permitting, or policy incentives. This creates a false sense of certainty and pushes unresolved risks into later phases, where investors expect clarity. To avoid this, a dedicated Conceptual Phase (see Figure 3 ) is essential in serving as a structured pre-feasibility stage for scenario modelling, dynamic risk mapping, and early stakeholder alignment. Rather than treating the project as siloed parts, it frames it as a system where design, finance, policy, and supply chain decisions are interdependent from day one. The goal is to surface interdependencies, reveal overlooked risks, and establish system-level views.